Maybe to show that they have a fair system of justice and not one like Rwanda, like some of his supporters would like us to believe.

From what I read that issue wasn't why he has another 14 days to appeal. It is because his QC spotted that some of the judges based their ruling on something that had not been tested in open court. Not the specifics of what that thing was (can't remember if this was who issued the warrant or not).



However why didn't the judges know who issued the warrant?



Why didn't his QC tell them as part of her defence if this is so significant?



I also thought just because on the face of it someone like a Swedish prosecutor isn't mentioned in the treaty that came up with the European arrest warrant as someone who can issue the warrant the judges can rule it was clearly intended to include such people anyway.

I didn't say it was. The objections of those involved were completely separate.

Why do defenders of Assange somehow choose to downplay or even ignore the possibility that Assange may have actually committed crimes in Sweden, which he'd also be in trouble for in the UK? You know, ones involving victims? Surely that's the first issue to be sorted out.

You mentioned earlier that some of the judges would have voted differently if they had been aware of certain fact(s)?



If so and assuming they are now aware, is it now just a formality he will win the appeal?

What, you mean St Julian could just possibly be mounting every kind of legal defence and conspiracy theory to take attention away from the fact that he may have, just possibly, actually broken the law and committed a crime for which he should be tried? nah, that will never fly with the bleeding hearts brigade.

I am more interested in the process than the alleged crimes. I want to know if he is extradited it is not down to anything shady or underhand.



If due process is followed and he is extradited fairly I don't have a problem with that.